My understanding is that the topic of this subthread is whether there is evidence to support the idea that Iran has done something for which sanctions are appropriate. I think there is sufficient evidence of that.

If you want to debate whether the U.S. should sell arms to Saudi Arabia, I think that is a different topic.

I think the debate is whether you think that Iran has done something that warrants the sanctions and if yes, whether you think sanctions should also be imposed on Saudi Arabia, who has unquestionably done much worse, or is this not an objective standard that the U.S. follows and only select 'rouge' states fall under them, whereas other rouge states do not, as long as they maintain sufficient trading relationships?

Sure it’s a different story. Because it explains everything. How come one country is sanctioned while the other is treated like good friends. This is not a new trend with Yemen and Khashoggi affair either. Saudi Arabia has spread it’s ideology both to Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia and also in parts of Africa. That ideology is behind groups such as Al-quaida, Al-shahab, ISIS, Taliban who knows who else. This started in the 80s. Yet because they were allied with US they were treated like friends. Reagan even took a couple of pictures with some of them.

But history and context does not suit a soldier who is only looking at the “facts” given by his superior.